Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
@Greenmantle: As far as monetary support goes, churches tend to set up non-religious not-for-profits to lobby and fund candidates. It's never a church funding a candidate directly.
As far as preaching from the pulpit goes, churches have freedom of speech just as much as anything else.
Wizard Needs Food BadlyFirst off, the church would get the tax exemption not the Christians who use it.
Secondly, under this logic NPR's and PBS' tax exemptions are also violations of the freedom of expression. No different than requiring that people who listen to private broadcasting pay less taxes than those that listen to public broadcasting.
Thirdly the Freedom of expression is the right to express one's ideas and opinions freely through speech, writing, and other forms of communication. I still don't see how that is being violated.
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016What? NPR and PBS are funded by a combination of public money and private donations. I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.What have I done...
Okay I'm going to try and change topics. This showed up in a local newspaper.
Thoughts?
The Establishment Clause means that the US govt may not pick and choose either between religions, or between religions and non-religions. Therefore, if PBS etc are allowed to be non-profit 'social good' tax exempt organisations, religions have to be allowed to be non-profit 'social good' tax exempt organisations.
Steering a path between 'odd beliefs I don't subscribe to' and 'there is no way that's a religion' is somewhat problematic, but I will point out that (so far) the US has not had a Civil War that was about which religion to go for.
Given Europe's history, James Madison may have been on to something...
It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.And things like PBS have to demonstrate they're doing social good, while churches have to demonstrate they're churches. If churches want to be tax exempt, they should have to follow the same procedure as other charities to show they're deserving of being tax exempt. They shouldn't be tax exempt because they are churches, though. I mean, an atheist organization can't claim tax exemption for being an atheist organization, but a theist organization can claim tax exemption for being a theist organization. That's a clear violation of the establishment clause.
![]()
actually, no.
Literary organisations also don't have to prove 'social good'. Scientific organisations get tax exempt status for being, well, scientific. I believe trade unions are also tax exempt? And chambers of commerce. Social clubs - which certainly don't have to prove any social good beyond providing pleasure and recreation. Fraternities, if they give any profits to charity.
Discriminating against a non-profit social grouping on the grounds that it is religious is a violation of the Establishment Clause. It is favouring non-religion over religion.
Incidentally, as a matter of terminology, Jainism, the core of Buddhism and certain paths in Hinduism are all non-theistic. Christian Atheism has been referred to above. 'Theism' does not equal 'religion'
edited 27th Jan '13 3:23:27 PM by Bluesqueak
It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.Those groups are not atheists, though. They're nonreligious. They're not the same.
If you have an explicit atheist philosophy advocacy group, or some organization under that banner, then it should be treated as a religion. Unlike the aforementioned groups, atheist philosophy groups would actually take a stance on religion.
edited 27th Jan '13 3:27:32 PM by Trivialis
Atheist, as in without theism. Not believing in religion is about as far as you can get from religion. Although I find the idea that philosophy =religion to be an interesting idea.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?He has a point.
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016It feels like the campaign season lasts for two years. So if you're a member of a two-year house, you spend half your time after election campaigning for re-election. Of course, since Congress has an over 90% retention rate, campaigning is largely redundant anyway. They're really just spending time away from Washington fundraising.
edited 27th Jan '13 8:41:25 PM by Lawyerdude
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.This is just a thought, but what if we had politicians take oaths of poverty? That is, when they get elected, they must give up all their material goods, move into government housing, and live off a small government stipend. Anytime they go outside, they'd have to be accompanied by government agents who ensure that they don't receive or enjoy anything worth more than a few dollars. And this would continue for the rest of their lives, even after they leave office.
Sounds pretty extreme, I know, but demanding a big sacrifice from politicians as proof of their altruistic intentions seems like it could have value.
Would they be living together? Because if, so then there will be blood.
EDIT: Also a lot of Senators are old; they need medicine and stuff.
edited 27th Jan '13 9:22:57 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

Here's a breakdown of the IRS's restrictions on political activities by tax-exempt organizations: Link
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.